The Creepiest Thing a Politician Can Say

A warped philosophy of society is at the heart of that creepy statement.

Share this post:

Anonymous

Tom, I agree with you. The head government official’s duty shouldn’t be to lead, but to ensure that our freedoms are protected. Could you provide more context for this quote?

http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

I think Romney said it in the debate tonight. Then I was reading a Facebook thread in which someone said she really liked Chris Christie and that she thought he could lead. [[shudder]]

http://twitter.com/MooseOfReason MooseOfReason

It’s among the creepiest things a politician could say.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BR53HBDRYJBFAON72CFPFGFD5Q Parker

Yeah, a lot of people seem to want a strong leader… yet they don’t seem to care about where they’re being led… We the Lemmings!

http://twitter.com/LA_Liberty LA Liberty

Scarier still: when Valerie Jarret went on Meet the Press and said Obama was “ready to rule on day one.”

neocontrotsky

We may just have to give Samuel credit for being the first to notice the stupidity of human beings to want to be led by a ruler in the modern day nation state sense in the Book of Samuel. Too bad we didn’t listen to his warnings at the time. I think most people seem to have some sort of bizarre desire to be “led” by someone with “leadership qualities.” These days that means being tall, having enough makeup on one’s face for tv purposes, looking young through plastic surgery, and speaking in soundbites that are dumbed down to where elementary students can understand.

Anonymous

Thanks for hitting on a pet peeve of mine. I stopped calling politicians leaders awhile ago.

A leader has followers, and following only makes sense when it is voluntary.

Laura

But THAT is just what we NEED. We just need someone genuine, like Dr. Paul, that’s all. He’s the most modest candidate on that stage.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1210981968 Tom Larson

Definitely the statement of a sociopath.

UK6strings

I know what
you mean Tom but I do not have a problem with the idea that someone will
“lead” the US back to a Constitutionally-sound, limited government
because, in the political and social climate we live in today, people need
someone, like Dr. Paul, who can lead them away from the bleating siren call of
socialism and back to the Constitution.

Once we are
back there, then we can think of our representatives as actual *representatives*
who protect our liberties rather than “leaders” (a word of which contains echoes
to the word “overseer”) – but right now, I don’t get creeped out when people
call good men like Dr. Paul leaders when the country needs to be lead – guided,
steered – away, economically and philosophically, from where it currently sits.

Anonymous

Paul is definitely the best of the bunch and has my vote, even if I am writing him in next November. Nevertheless, he will still be limited in his ability as he constitutes only 1/3rd of our federal government. Electing Dr. Paul is a great goal but it is only the beginning of the path we need to follow.